New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: Dirk Bruere at NeoPax on 9 Aug 2006 21:13 John Larkin wrote: > >> and the U.K. is almost as old-fashioned, though >> at least they have some fairly effective rules for stopping excessive >> election advertising. > > Some very bright and thoughtful people have argued that there is no > such thing as excessive election advertising. Our Supreme Court has > found that restricting election advertising is in violation of our > constitutional right to free speech. Hardly 'free' is it? Dirk
From: Spehro Pefhany on 9 Aug 2006 22:13 On 9 Aug 2006 17:02:27 -0700, the renowned bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: > >Jim Yanik wrote: >> John Woodgate <jmw(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote in >> news:00XLxlD+aX2EFwv6(a)jmwa.demon.co.uk: >> >> > In message <1155077708.010870.213940(a)75g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, dated >> > Tue, 8 Aug 2006, bill.sloman(a)ieee.org writes >> > >> >>The odds are very good that your strategic arsenal will be made totally >> >>obsolete before it is ever used. >> > >> > I expect most Americans, even the most barking that post here, hope that >> > is true. They have much more to lose than Third World people, a small >> > percentage of which are probably the only ones likely to survive a >> > nuclear war. >> >> Look at today's Japan;they survived two nuclear detonations,and today are a >> prosperous,free nation. > >Probably not indicative of the aftermath of a nuclear exchange with >today's nuclear weapons - the two bombs dropped on Japan were 15 and 20 >kiloton devices. > >Fusion bombs are a couple of orders of magnitude more powerful, and few >attackers are going to limit themselves to two bombs. > >Do a google search on "nuclear winter". Well, it would put an end to global warming. Depopulating the North American continent and a good part of Asia would leave a lot more resources for the survivors. I think the Russians can still deliver a nuclear hit on every population center over 25,000, and I'm sure the US can do far worse. "The great city of Babylon split into three pieces, and cities around the world fell into heaps of rubble" - Revelation 16:19
From: joseph2k on 9 Aug 2006 22:07 John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:26:14 +0200, "Frank Bemelman" > <f.bemelmanq(a)xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote: > >>"John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht >>> --- >>> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her >>> own laws and in her own way? >> >>Yes, *defending*, sure, and without the American cheerleaders throwing >>money at it. Thank you very much. > > --- > Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending > ourselves under our own laws and in our own way, so if you don't > have a problem with Israel doing the same thing (defending herself > under her own laws and in her own way) why do you have a problem > with us doing the same thing? > > But that is only part of it, we throw money to almost any nation that does not directly try to use it to hurt the USA. Saudia Arabia, and much of the middle east, Nigeria, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Colombia and most oil or drug exporting nations. -- JosephKK Gegen dummheit kampfen die Gotter Selbst, vergebens. --Schiller
From: krw on 9 Aug 2006 22:30 In article <4jvfi3F9tmn1U1(a)individual.net>, dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com says... > John Larkin wrote: > > > > >> and the U.K. is almost as old-fashioned, though > >> at least they have some fairly effective rules for stopping excessive > >> election advertising. > > > > Some very bright and thoughtful people have argued that there is no > > such thing as excessive election advertising. Our Supreme Court has > > found that restricting election advertising is in violation of our > > constitutional right to free speech. > > Hardly 'free' is it? Not as in "beer", no. There _are_ more important things than "free beer". -- Keith
From: krw on 9 Aug 2006 22:31
In article <4jurb3F9pjq1U1(a)individual.net>, dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com says... > Keith wrote: > > In article <91gid25upsoq7uvato0h0g9egur7rh5svs(a)4ax.com>, > > phatbytestard(a)getinmahharddrive.org says... > >> On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 09:37:13 +0100, Eeyore > >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> Gave us: > >> > >>> > >>> John Woodgate wrote: > >>> > >>>> In message <4jqtm0F9b7r6U1(a)individual.net>, dated Tue, 8 Aug 2006, Dirk > >>>> Bruere at NeoPax <dirk.bruere(a)gmail.com> writes > >>>>> Why not take Bin Laden at his word, and read *why* he attacked the US? > >>>> Citation? > >>> "We decided to destroy towers in America," because "we want to regain the > >>> freedom of our nation," Bin Ladin said. > >>> > >> What "nation" does Bin Laden call "his"? > >> > > Islam. > > > That's right. > And Bush and the FBI know *exactly* where the Nation of Islam is hiding > out in the US... > Something must be done! I agree; time to dust of them nukes and make some glass! -- Keith |